Re: [Debconf-team] Le Camp / payment terms / the DebDebt?
On 06/11/12 21:26, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
> When we sign a contract, we are in debt. It has always been the
> case. We want always to avoid being more in debt than what we can
> cover, but we have managed decently — I don't think I managed to
> follow your reasoning here.
There are different types of debt
e.g. if we have a specified amount (like the 1st instalment of 30k CHF),
that is very clear
Even better, if we already have 50k worth of gold bullion (or bitcoin)
stashed away somewhere safe, so we know that we can pay the 30k on time.
Those are manageable debts
The Le Camp contract seems more like a blank cheque with no upper bound.
There will need to be clear procedures defined explaining who is
authorised to give the head counts for meals each day, etc, and we will
need to track that closely ourselves to ensure it doesn't overshoot the
budget. Le Camp should be obliged to give us daily updates on the size
of our bill. That differs a lot from a pre-pay arrangement. The
contract drafts I've seen have no such detail about controls and procedures.
>> We could still do this with Le Camp: we just tell them
>> on day 1 `we raised another 50k, here it is, you now have 110k, don't
>> expect any more, feed us until the account is empty and then we'll start
>> scavenging'. However, this is not very elegant and it may be better to
>> have a more flexible structure that allows us to control the way we
>> ration the money if there is a shortfall.
>
> I don't think that either Le Camp, Interlaken or any other place would
> want to host us under such premises. They have to plan ahead on what
Let me make that clearer: we would give them the money on day 1 when we
arrive. So instead of them letting us `run up a tab' for a week, they
are deducting everything from that lump sum payment, and asking for more
money if it runs out during the week. This would ensure we have clear
feedback and no misunderstandings after the event.
> they will be buying, on the amount of people that will be working, on
> the general logistics. And I don't see the current contract any
> different from previous years' — Except in the amounts we will have to
> come up with.
That is what it boils down to - the amount
When you put all the other possible problems together, and multiply by
the amounts concerned, it scales out of proportion to something that can
be `bailed out' by any one individual or Debian itself:
> Right, in some cases we have even had to get individuals to loan us
> large amounts of money to pay the missing money to the hotels. It is
Reply to: